American Ry. Express Co. v. Powell

Supreme Court of Alabama

American Ry. Express Co. v. Powell

89 So. 546, 206 Ala. 266, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 103

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket7 Div. 222.

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 546 (American Ry. Express Co. v. Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Ry. Express Co. v. Powell, 89 So. 546, 206 Ala. 266, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 103 (Ala. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

[1, 2] While the consignee, Josie Powell, did not testify that she did not get the box, she testified that she called for it at the Philadelphia office twice and was informed that it was not there. The defendant’s card, claiming a delivery on October 26th to one J. F. Powell, was not even a claim that it was delivered to the consignee, Mrs. Josie Powell, and, if they made such a delivery, it was incumbent upon the defendant to show that said J. E. Powell was the consignee, Mrs. Josie Powell. While the consignee did not and perhaps could not contradict the claim that the box was delivered to J. E. Powell, the trial court could have inferred that it was not delivered to Josie Powell. Moreover, the defendant’s other card, sent the plaintiff, was contradictory of its claim that it was delivered to J. E. Powell October 26th. If the defendant notified the consignee in January, 1919, that the box was on hand and held at the owner’s risk, this was inconsistent with the statement that it was delivered October 26, 1918. True, this card bore a date of January, 1918, but it was postmarked 1919, and evidently was not mailed January, 1918, some months before the shipment October, 1918.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ANDERSON, C. J.

[1, 2] While the consignee, Josie Powell, did not testify that she did not get the box, she testified that she called for it at the Philadelphia office twice and was informed that it was not there. The defendant’s card, claiming a delivery on October 26th to one J. F. Powell, was not even a claim that it was delivered to the consignee, Mrs. Josie Powell, and, if they made such a delivery, it was incumbent upon the defendant to show that said J. E. Powell was the consignee, Mrs. Josie Powell. While the consignee did not and perhaps could not contradict the claim that the box was delivered to J. E. Powell, the trial court could have inferred that it was not delivered to Josie Powell. Moreover, the defendant’s other card, sent the plaintiff, was contradictory of its claim that it was delivered to J. E. Powell October 26th. If the defendant notified the consignee in January, 1919, that the box was on hand and held at the owner’s risk, this was inconsistent with the statement that it was delivered October 26, 1918. True, this card bore a date of January, 1918, but it was postmarked 1919, and evidently was not mailed January, 1918, some months before the shipment October, 1918.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 546, 206 Ala. 266, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-ry-express-co-v-powell-ala-1921.